T.Vedhagiri Vs. the Joint Engineer,

T.Vedhagiri vs The Joint Engineer,

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Apr 11, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/927192

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/927192
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Vinod K.Sharma, J.
Decided On: Apr 11, 2012
Case Number: W.P.No.17771 of 2011
Subject: Constitution

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

[VINOD K.SHARMA, J.] Constitution of India - Articles 226 -- The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to take final decision on the application moved by the petitioner for grant of separate electricity connection, for the portion...

Key legal issue: Constitution
Acts & sections: Constitution of India - Articles 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

T.Vedhagiri

Advocate Mr.K.Varadharajan, Adv.

Respondent

The Joint Engineer,

Advocate Mr.P.Gunaraj, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Constitution of India - Articles 226

Excerpt

[vinod k.sharma, j.] constitution of india - articles 226 -- the petitioner has approached this court with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to take final decision on the application moved by the petitioner for grant of separate electricity connection, for the portion in possession of the petitioner as joint owner.the mother of the petitioner died on 03.04.1984......the property was originally owned by the mother of the petitioner, but the petitioner along with his brother and sister were also living in the same property. the family in addition owned other property measuring 6.75 cents. the mother of the petitioner died on 03.04.1984.4. the submission of the petitioner is, that by claiming right under the will, the brother of the petitioner disconnected the electricity connection of the petitioner, and his request for reconnection was also not accepted. the wife of the petitioner therefore applied for separate electricity connection on 22.12.2010 in the name of the petitioner as his agent.5. in reply to the application, the 2nd respondent asked for necessary documents, which were also supplied to the electricity department, but till date no action has been taken, on the application moved by the petitioner.6. the learned counsel for the respondents on instruction submits that the application filed by the petitioner will be considered as per rules and in case the petitioner is found entitled to separate connection, it shall be provided to him at the earliest.7. in view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondents, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to take a final decision regarding grant of separate electricity connection to the petitioner. the needful be done within two weeks of the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.no costs.

Full Judgment

Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to distribute fresh electricity connection in favour of the petitioner's name for the property situated at 2.26, Uurandakulam Street, Kalpakkam, Kanchipuram District, Pin- 603 102 subsequently considering the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 22.12.2010 pending before the 1st respondent.

ORDER

1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to take final decision on the application moved by the petitioner for grant of separate electricity connection, for the portion in possession of the petitioner as joint owner.

2. The petitioner is working at Abudhabi since 1986 and is co-owner of the property comprised in Door No.2/26 & 27 Uurandakulam Street, Sadras, Kalpakkam, bearing Survey No.257/6 measuring of 5.25 cents at Meyyur Village No.75, Thirukazhukundram Taluk, Kanchipuram District.

3. The property was originally owned by the mother of the petitioner, but the petitioner along with his brother and sister were also living in the same property. The family in addition owned other property measuring 6.75 cents. The mother of the petitioner died on 03.04.1984.

4. The submission of the petitioner is, that by claiming right under the Will, the brother of the petitioner disconnected the electricity connection of the petitioner, and his request for reconnection was also not accepted. The wife of the petitioner therefore applied for separate electricity connection on 22.12.2010 in the name of the petitioner as his agent.

5. In reply to the application, the 2nd respondent asked for necessary documents, which were also supplied to the electricity department, but till date no action has been taken, on the application moved by the petitioner.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents on instruction submits that the application filed by the petitioner will be considered as per Rules and in case the petitioner is found entitled to separate connection, it shall be provided to him at the earliest.

7. In view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondents, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to take a final decision regarding grant of separate electricity connection to the petitioner. The needful be done within two weeks of the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

No costs.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2012 Same Parties T.Vedhagiri vs The Joint Engineer, Same Subject Constitution Same Judge Vinod K.Sharma, J. Acts & Sections Constitution of India - Articles 226

Constitution